Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that the promotion triggers a store fetch (description, install count, rating, languages), that ranking history is backfilled from existing searches, that the response omits the description, the pending->scraped async status flow via list_competitors, the 20-per-store cap counted separately per store, and the account requirement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers workflow, behavior, limits, and auth. It is relatively long, and the ranking-history paragraph borders on promotional, but nearly every sentence delivers operative detail an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover everything, and it does: return behavior, async status checking, per-store limits, and account prerequisites. An agent has all it needs to call this correctly and handle the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning by tying store/external_id to search_store's return values ('exactly as search_store returns it') and extension_id to list_extensions. This complements the schema rather than restating it, though it does not add format detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start tracking a competitor') and clarifies scope ('for an extension') against the sibling add_keyword by naming the tracked entity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like add_keyword or search_store, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Takes the same store and external_id that search_store returns, so a result you just saw on a SERP can be promoted.' It also names the fallback tools (find_listing, get_store_listing) for users without an ExtensionDash account, covering when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.